More on Richard Parker's bio of JKG
I want to correct a wrong turn I took, or one I took too soon, in my first message about the book on Galbraith. Toward the end I was suggesting that Parker could write the book on current economics that the discipline lacks--be a new Adam Smith, so to speak. What I intended to do first was to say that I had long wished that Galbraith would undertake such a task. He was gifted, original, insightful, extremely well informed, and diligent about what was going on in the US during the 20th century, and that was just great. But we are yearning for something more--something that puts forth the big picture of what economics is really about. Robert Gordon is referred to by Parker as having said something like what I have in mind. Economics needs a totally new agenda, including the study of workers, firms, institutional arrangements, power, the distribution of wealth, tax structure, government regs. Anyway, I thought for years that Galbraith should sit down and rewrite economics. I still think he could have done it.
Now I think Richard Parker might be capable of such a task.
But againI must add, having just read what Parker says about him, that Nobel laureate Amartya Sen might be the one who should tackle it. Sen clearly has a very different vision of what economics is about than do those currently in charge of the discipline. He talks about "social choice" as an issue not just for economics but also one with which the the public must engage to secure the enlargement of "positive human freedom" and the capacity to enjoy it. The intrinsic capacity, he goes on, may be there, but without the right set of skills, individually and collectively, to negotiate its acquisition, maintenance, and expansion, they will never achieve it. Sen insists on making larger moral and cultural concerns preconditions for answering economic questions. This is what I feel the discipline of economics should do.
Clearly I'm not ready to write about this, and an apology from me is due. But maybe I can use this digression to say that Parker's book about Galbraith was such a formidable achievement, such an inspiration, that I'm just bursting with ideas about the promise of economics, should some gifted practitioners sit down to write about it realistically.
Now I think Richard Parker might be capable of such a task.
But againI must add, having just read what Parker says about him, that Nobel laureate Amartya Sen might be the one who should tackle it. Sen clearly has a very different vision of what economics is about than do those currently in charge of the discipline. He talks about "social choice" as an issue not just for economics but also one with which the the public must engage to secure the enlargement of "positive human freedom" and the capacity to enjoy it. The intrinsic capacity, he goes on, may be there, but without the right set of skills, individually and collectively, to negotiate its acquisition, maintenance, and expansion, they will never achieve it. Sen insists on making larger moral and cultural concerns preconditions for answering economic questions. This is what I feel the discipline of economics should do.
Clearly I'm not ready to write about this, and an apology from me is due. But maybe I can use this digression to say that Parker's book about Galbraith was such a formidable achievement, such an inspiration, that I'm just bursting with ideas about the promise of economics, should some gifted practitioners sit down to write about it realistically.
posted by Gladys at 11:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home